TRTL:"Nope. Both are."

Now we're getting somewhere. Are you also starting to come to a realisation that for all sorts of reasons people are treated differently by our culture? The fact that those differences exist doesn't imply any lack of "fairness", but usually reflects hstorical historical ways of addressing persistent social conditions.

You say "It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism.", yet until only 40 years ago a woman who opened her legs too readily was likely to end up pregnant in short order, while a man who put it about faced no such risk. Up until only 80 years ago, with the invention of penicillin, if someone got a venereal disease they had it for life. Both men and women shared the risk, yet only the woman risked passing it to an unborn child.

These facts lead to certain cultural prejudices designed to make it less scoially acceptable for women to engage in promiscuity: for their own protection rather than for any oppressive motives.

What you and the rest of the Victim Appreciation Society don't seem to grasp is that every time we exercise our self-determination we must have cognisance of the consequences. Pretending that the consequences of sex can ever be the same for men and women is simply stupid, therefore pretending that our culture is "unfair" for treating them differently is at best disingenuous.

Besides, women have always been the ones who decide who gets to have sex. As my Mum used to say: "a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his pants down". Some men have been prepared to take what they can't get by other means, but for most people the woman is the "gatekeeper". Is that fair?

Cornflower:"Risk-taking cannot be prevented or made 'safe' through State bans"

nAnna Bligh here in Qld thinks it can. Engaging in "unregulated high risk activity", such as climbing a tree, for example (unless you're a trained climber, of course), is an offence and renders one subject to arrest.

Fortunately, nAnna and her lapdog, Cameron the Dick will be gone at the next elction, but I'll bet the LNP doesn't repeal the law...

Antiwomen: << As my Mum used to say: "a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his pants down". Some men have been prepared to take what they can't get by other means, but for most people the woman is the "gatekeeper". Is that fair? >>

What an appalling statement. However, I'm not at all surprised that you attribute your antediluvian attitude to women to your mother. Quite Freudian, really.

Sex isn't something that women "give" and men "get". That realisation was pretty much the whole point of the 'sexual revolution', along with the freedom for women and men to engage in sexual relationships without being stuck with some loser for life.

As we read so regularly at OLO, there are apparently quite a few people - mostly men - who'd like to take us back to the 1950s. The greatest benefit of the 'sexual revolution' is that the more enlightened majority can tell those sad sacks to go jump.

Pomeranian:"Pphhwwwoof, phhwwwoof"

erm... hang on little fella, you're meant to be responding to the whistle, not trying to blow it. You know you're much better at sniffing than blowing.

Now we've got that worked out for you, why don't you try to tell me precisely what you think I said that was wrong?

Have you ever forced yourself on a woman when she was unwilling and you were keen? Does that not make her the "gatekeeper"?

There's another old saying: "some people are just thick"...

Cornflower . Yes Bel Mooney makes a very strong , welcome and pointed case for reform .Thanks for that.
Nothing worse than more blame game. The really important thing too here is not more theory but lets cut to the chase -the consequences of the idea .Like Marxism well intentioned but ineffective even destructive effects on the human spirit. Time for objective review and honest reflection. Use as few words as possible
Martin Amis provides the model - I don't want to hear more theory on this subject. I want to hear people who care about people cause that's where Martins story on Susan carries more weight than all our blogs put together.

Note the young people leaving the church and the reality of admission in the public sphere- opportunities for growth ....if you listen? http://abcchurch.blogspot.com

Antiwomen, you're positively Neanderthal.

<< Have you ever forced yourself on a woman when she was unwilling and you were keen? >>

Er, no - have you? I believe it's called rape.

<< Does that not make her the "gatekeeper"? >>

I think that "gatekeeping" is a pretty poor metaphor here, old chap. Women are either sexually receptive or not - most men these days are capable of spotting the difference, but I'm not all that surprised that you can't.

You may be surprised to learn that there are even occasions when men aren't in the mood for sex when their partners are. What do you think happens then?

One of the great things about the 'sexual revolution' is that women were permitted to assert their sexuality without necessarily attracting shame, but I suspect you've never noticed that.